Ned May

There’s a new category in this site about Edward S. May who, under the penname of ‘Baron Bodissey’, presides the counter-Jihad blogsite Gates of Vienna.

Published in: on June 4, 2018 at 8:08 pm  Comments (8)  

Take your pick

I was amused in the first hours of this day with the classification, in White Right Hub, of several blogsites where we learn that Mark Steyn is a ‘Normie’ and the Zimmermann Blog a ‘Crypto Jew’. There is a useful category, ‘Borderline Alt Right’ that includes Taki’s Magazine. But I especially liked the category ‘Alt Christian Cuck’ which includes the following:

Brother Nathanael
Lasha Darkmoon
Millennial Woes
Occidental Dissent
Political Cesspool Radio Show
Thermidor
Vox Popoli

What I enjoyed the most, however, is the classification of Ned May’s blogsite Gates of Vienna as ‘Gates of Tel Aviv’! According to the criterion of the admin non-labelled sites, which includes my own one, apparently are okay.

Published in: on May 17, 2018 at 9:14 am  Comments (4)  

Why Deschner

Why reproduce passages from Karlheinz Deschner’s book?

When more than eight years ago I discovered the internet sites that claimed to defend the West from mass migration, I was delighted. The first of those places where I interacted with people was Gates of Vienna. It was the first time in my life that I encountered Jews in serious discussions.

Then I knew nothing of the Jewish problem. But the way that half-Jew Takuan Seiyo reacted when I began to awaken to the Jewish question was so bilious that in my mind it had the diametrically opposite effect: it made me see that his critics were right.

Then I started having problems with the star of the anti-jihad movement: the Norwegian Fjordman especially when, in a thread of Gates of Vienna, I mentioned that famous YouTube clip in which a Jewess emigrated to Sweden says that the Jews will play a central role in turning European countries multiracial. Fjordman became furious, and I did not understand his fury until, thanks to the Breivik incident in Norway, later it was revealed that Fjordman’s father was Jewish.

That means that Fjordman is a crypto-Jew, something that in time I also came to suspect of another commentator of Gates of Vienna, Conservative Swede: as in August of 2009 he became furious with me in a discussion thread when I mentioned Hitler. (That happened before I openly converted to National Socialism.)

Another Jewish fellow in the counter-jihad movement with whom I had problems was the late Lawrence Auster. Once I woke up to the Jewish question in 2010, Auster slandered me on his site saying that I wanted to exterminate the Jews—in times when I didn’t say such a thing. As his site View From the Right received many hits on Google, that defamation caused me problems, as one of my family’s friends is a Jewess; and the gossip of what Auster wrote came to her ears and eventually to my family’s.

Thus, over time I realized that the anti-jihad movement was full of ethnic Jews, half-Jews and crypto-Jews. But all of this paled with the way Edward S. May (‘Baron Bodissey’), the admin of Gates of Vienna, reacted to my awakening.

As I’ve said in this blog, the ‘Baron’ interrupted the publication, in his site, of the series of chapters that I now collect under the title Day of Wrath. But what surprised me the most was that the ‘Baron’ is neither a Jew nor a crypto. He is one of those typical boomers who almost feel devotion for the Jews. I will never forget the e-mail he sent me when notifying me that he would interrupt the publication of my book. This pious Christian spoke of the ‘sanctity’ of the Jews he knew! So the underlying problem in Gates of Vienna was the gentile administrator, more than the kikes that orbited his site.

Gates of Vienna, I later learned during my awakening on the Jewish question, was only the tip of the iceberg. In Esau’s Tears, a book I bought when I still wanted to communicate with them, I was exasperated how, throughout the 19th century, Europeans handed the press over to the subversive tribe. The platform that the modest Gates of Vienna provided to those Jews was only a gecko compared to Godzilla in the wider world! And all, over the years I came to realise, because of a version of Christianity sympathetic to Jewry—precisely the version of Christianity in the United States.

The way I see things now is uncomplicated. I could compare it with an influenza virus that damages our defences and makes us prone to a bacteria that infects our throats.

White nationalists are very aware of bacteria. But very few—Tom Sunic among them—are aware that bacterial subversion was not the product of spontaneous generation but was internalised via a religion of Semitic origin, Christianity. So, and here I go beyond Sunic, if we hate the ‘virus’ (Christian ethics) to the point of destroying it, the bacteria problem would be solved because our defences would be robust again. This is why I am now adding more blog entries of Deschner’s Criminal History of Christianity.

Which white nationalist knows the history of Christianity? Who was aware of, say, the rabid fanaticism with which the Fathers of the Church and the early theologians fought each other (see my latest entries from Deschner’s book)?

The truth is that nationalists ignore the history of their religion: they know only the myths, legends and lies they told us as children educated in the Christian faith.

It is time for someone to understand the Christian virus from its origins, in the hope that the Aryan man will be able to recover his defences and win the battle against (((bacteria)).

Lightning revisited

Seven years ago, when the West’s Darkest Hour was not hosted by WordPress but by Blogspot I wrote “A Lightning in the Middle of the Night!” It was a milestone in my awakening on the Jewish question.

If you are familiar with that article, you’ll know that before my awakeing my “Austeresque” masthead on Blogspot contained a sentence inspired in Auster, who became distressed after the lightning struck me.

The “lightning” post resulted in that Edward (“Ned”) May, the editor of GoV (penname: Baron Bodissey), interrupted publication of my Return of Quetzalcoatl. Furthermore, a half-Jew who used to contribute to May’s blog under the deceiving name of Takuan Seiyo became hysterical (see the comments section of my piece at Blogspot).

The challenge of that essay (“If by March I don’t get a convincing rebuttal of the Bullard statement by my visitors…”) also marked my realization that apologists of Jewry simply don’t respond when challenged with a most serious accusation (Jews “are never over-represented in organisations or movements that represent the interests of the ethnic majority, only those that weaken that majority ”). Last year Ned May authored a short piece, “The Jewish Counterjihad” for his GoV, which contains this sentence:

In response to those who lament the over-representation of Jews in far left Multicultural organizations, I frequently point out the massive over-representation of Jews in the Counterjihad. On both sides of the Atlantic, but especially here in the USA, some of the staunchest and most dedicated activists resisting Islamization are Jews, in numbers far greater than their proportion in the general population.

Does this respond to my February 2010 challenge? Hardly. May’s argument has many holes.

First, the “West” is a euphemism for the white race. The counter-jihad movement is unrelated to the preservation of the white race, and therefore of the West. There cannot be a Western culture if all whites commit thoroughgoing mestization in the same way that, due to an almost complete mestization, New Spain died in this continent as an extension of Spain to become “Mexico.”

Second, if I remember correctly, in 2009 May once told me in one of the threaded comments of his blog that since he had a coloured member in his family I should be sensitive about posting my racist views there. More than once, in those old conversations with May’s wife, Ceara Sullivan, she boasted about her black neighbours that she hoped will greatly thrive in life. “Western preservation” for this very Christian couple could mean preserving Christianity versus Islam even if that means that their country will become brown.

Third, the Jews concerned about the advance of Islam in Europe are concerned about their tribe (e.g., the fate of Jews in Malmo, Sweden), not about the preservation of the Aryan race there or of Anglo-Saxons in America. Who among those Jews that May considers “staunchest activists” would accept the 14 words? Before our sacred words, wouldn’t they cringe like vampires facing a crucifix?

Fourth, take a note about the book Esau’s Tears that Bullard mentions above. When I tried to discuss with May after he expelled me from publishing in his site, I took heed of an advice by Fjordman: that only Jews or half-Jews would be able to criticize Jews objectively. I played their little game and called their attention to Esau’s Tears, an academic work published by Cambridge University and authored by the Jew Albert Lindemann. The book, that I have read, elicited good reviews from Jews and it demonstrates that the Jewish problem is not an Aryan hallucination, as Takuan Seiyo claimed in the comments section of my lighting article.

In 2010 I received no reasonable response from May, Fjordman, Seiyo, Auster and even Conservative Swede about approaching the JP according to their rules (only Jews should criticize Jews, etc). They simply ignored Esau’s Tears!

In conclusion, Jews are never overrepresented in organizations that advocate Aryan preservation. In the specific case of counter-jihad it is full of Jews, half-Jews and self-bamboozled gentiles trying to get you stuck just there. Their memes are Don’t cross the psychological Rubicon! Don’t reach the other side and realize that all’s about racial consciousness!

For instance, in the comments section of “The Jewish Counterjihad” May commented: “It’s the same error (or syndrome) as blaming all Jews for what Jewish lefties do.” But the point is that even if not all Muslims in Europe are jihadists, Muslims in general should be deported from Europe.

Exactly the same can be said about the other Semites living in the West.

For the visitor of this site who has not crossed the psychological Rubicon, or cannot get a copy of Lindemann’s book, I recommend William Pierce’s “Seeing the Forest.”

Published in: on June 14, 2017 at 5:57 pm  Comments (2)  

A postscript to

“A lightning in the middle of the night!”

When in late 2009 and early 2010 I contributed to Baron Bodissey’s Gates of Vienna (GoV) I was a philo-Semite. Then I awoke to the real world and distanced myself from Bodissey, after I realised that he was unwilling to discuss the Jewish Question.

It seems that Bodissey still does not allow legit commentariat at GoV. See for example “What Gates of Vienna wouldn’t publish” that appeared in Diversity Macht Frei in November 2015. I’ve just discovered that article.

In the GoV thread Dymphna, Bodissey’s wife, replied to another critic thus: “Jews are over-represented in music, the arts, science, etc. Shall we view the Nobel Prizes for science with suspicion since Ashkenazi Jews abound there?” Once more, she forgot the very crux of the Jewish problem. As I quoted and commented in February 2010 in “A lightning in the middle of the night!”:
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Take note that GoV is a philo-Semitic blogsite, with a big Star of David in its main page stating “We Support Israel.” Below I quote a comment from the 2009 exchange at GoV. Avery Bullard said:

As I have often pointed out, socialism is by and large a disease of the intellectuals, and Jews are over-represented among intellectuals, due to a high native intelligence and a tradition of giving their children as much education as possible. Jews were also over-represented amongst musicians, physicists, and capitalist entrepreneurs.

But they are never over-represented in organisations or movements that represent the interests of the ethnic majority, only those that weaken that majority [the lightning!]. That is why they’ve been expelled from so many very different countries over so many centuries. Yet with the possible exception of Albert Lindemann (Esau’s Tears) they never want to know the reasons why they’ve been so disliked in order to prevent more tragedies in the future. Instead they dismiss all anti-Semitism as scapegoating. In other words: are Jews more responsible for communism, based on their proportional representation amongst the intelligentsia, than any other intellectuals? If they are over-represented in the intelligentsia then they had disproportionate influence in the direction the intelligentsia took. Many Russian intellectuals were Slavo-philes. Before Jews could access the most important U.S. universities the old WASP intelligentsia in the U.S. was much more traditionalist.

Bullard’s comment in the words I italicized above was the lightning that changed my worldview: from philo-Semitism to anti-Semitism in a single stroke!

______ 卐 ______

 
As I have said, I wrote about my “Damascene conversion” more than six years ago. Nowadays I feel I’m light-years ahead from the Counter-Jihad movement.

For those who doubt that Jews “are never over-represented in organisations or movements that represent the interests of the ethnic majority, only those that weaken that majority,” read Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy.

Published in: on August 5, 2016 at 9:06 am  Comments Off on A postscript to  

Our crystal ball

Further to my previous post.

As der Schwerter has just translated to German an article by Edward S. May (“Baron Bodissey”) that explains beautifully why it is almost certain that economic Armageddon is around the corner.

Below “Chump Change,” the complete 2009 article by May that originally appeared at Gates of Vienna. Presently the situation in the US is far more compromised thanks to the ongoing (suicidal) efforts of chairman Ben Bernanke:




When I was seven years old I took up coin collecting as a hobby. Back in those days there were still a lot of interesting coins in circulation: the buffalo nickel, the Mercury dime, the Liberty Walking half dollar, and—if you were patient and went through enough rolls of coins—the occasional Indian head penny or “V” nickel.

The most exciting coin of all, however, was the silver dollar. The 1921 “Peace” dollar would do, but the Morgan dollar was preferable—it had a serious-looking 19th century design, and was the very same dollar that filled those heavy payroll bags heisted by stagecoach robbers in Westerns. It was a nice hefty piece of real American history, and it could fill the palm of a small boy’s hand.

Up until my tenth birthday my allowance was fifty cents a week, which I received in the form of a biweekly dollar bill. During my silver dollar craze I would take that bill down to the bank and ask for a silver dollar in exchange for it. The tellers all knew me, and would oblige me by picking through their selection of silver dollars until they found a date I didn’t have.

I was able to indulge myself in this manner because most of the dollar bills in circulation back then were still silver certificates.

The bank had no choice: under its charter, it was required by law to “pay the bearer on demand” a dollar in official United States silver coinage for every silver certificate presented to it.

No one has the same option today. Today all the paper money in circulation consists of Federal Reserve notes, which are not redeemable for anything in particular. You can go to the bank and exchange your dollar bill for four quarters, but those are no longer the shiny silver discs that rang so delightfully on the marble counter at the teller’s window. Nowadays the dimes, quarters, and half dollars are all “Johnson slugs”, the ugly nickel-copper sandwiches that were introduced in 1964 when silver coinage was abolished and the silver certificates were withdrawn from circulation. 1968 was the last year in which the law required that any paper dollar be redeemable in silver.

The abolition of silver coinage was the culmination of an extended process that took most of a century to complete: the disconnection of American paper currency from any fixed standard of value as represented by precious metals.

By the time the Johnson slugs appeared, the abolition of the silver coinage was an absolute necessity. The price of silver had been allowed to float, and because of inflation the silver in a dollar coin was worth more than $1.25. Entrepreneurs could make a tidy profit buying up silver dollars in bulk, melting them down, and selling them as bullion to silver traders. The old coins had to go, which meant that the silver certificates had to go, too.

From then on the federal government was not required to give you anything for your dollar bill. If you had one, you could go out and buy something that other people were willing to give you in exchange for your piece of paper. But the Treasury was obliged to provide nothing of value in return for that piece of paper except the “full faith and credit of the United States government”, which was worth a lot more in 1964 than it is today.

In the 19th century, the United States adhered first to a “bi-metallic” standard—both silver and gold coinage—and then the gold standard. Under the pressure of the Great Depression, FDR initiated a gradual slide away from gold and into a silver standard for the paper currency, although the Treasury and the Federal Reserve adhered to the gold standard until 1971.

Since then the official currency of the United States has been anchored by nothing more than global confidence in the soundness of the dollar. As long as everybody believed in the same fantasy, then the system could operate. The dollars were printed, credit was extended, the financial markets functioned, and business enterprises were profitable. People went to work and got paid and bought stuff.

They also borrowed money and took out mortgages, which brings us to the mess we’re in today.

Today’s system of commercial and consumer credit is made possible by the practice of fractional reserve banking. Until the late 18th or early 19th century, banks did not lend out their cash reserves of depositors’ money. The advent of fractional reserve banking made it legal for a bank to lend out a portion of its deposits, and required it to keep only a fraction of those deposits—in modern times, typically 20%—as an actual cash reserve.

This means that when Joe Consumer deposits $1000 into his bank account, the bank can lend up to $800 of it and keep $200 of the deposit as a fractional reserve, maintaining the loan on its books as an asset. At this point the initial $1000 in cash has morphed into $1800 in cash assets and credit—in effect, $800 worth of money has been created.

When the borrower deposits the $800 into another bank, that bank in turn can loan out $640. And so the process continues, forming a geometric progression of assets which cannot exceed $5000 (500% of the original deposit), $4000 of that in loans listed as assets on the books of the respective banks.

This practice seems bizarre and imprudent at first glance, but it was absolutely essential during the expansion of our industrial economies. Industrialization created wealth where none existed before, but without a way to extend the money supply to match the added wealth, the capitalization of industry would have lagged, and growth would have been much slower. Fractional reserve lending allowed credit to be extended to industrial entrepreneurs, and as long as loans were made prudently and repaid on time, and banks retained their depositors’ confidence, the system functioned well.

Maintaining a gold or silver standard imposed a natural limit on the inflation of the money supply via fractional reserve banking. As long as banks met their capitalization requirements and observed the rules for fractional reserves, the money supply could never expand past the implied mathematical limit.

During times of economic contraction the system sometimes foundered. Then there would be a run on the banks, and some banks would fail. Although the system always righted itself eventually, businesses were ruined and individuals impoverished in the process, so that the political pressure for a system of government controls was irresistible.

Right: At a distance looks like the White House but it is the “Fed” headquarters (Eccles Building)

Thus was the Federal Reserve born in 1913. The Fed is a consortium of private banks linked closely to the government, and functions more or less as a central bank would in many countries. Its job is to control the money supply by setting interest rates for government lending. By stabilizing swings in the money supply, the Fed’s mission is to prevent bank runs. It’s not always successful: witness the recent run on Washington Mutual and its subsequent collapse—the largest bank failure in history.

The current gargantuan federal government, so far beyond the size and scope of what the Founding Fathers originally envisaged, owes its origins to the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln. Using military means, Lincoln demonstrated that the government in Washington was the absolute master of the several States.

But the bloated bureaucracy didn’t really take off until Woodrow Wilson invoked his presidential authority during World War I to create federal powers and functions which had never existed before, and which just happened to fit into his Progressive framework.

Not all of these powers were scrapped after 1918, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt took everything a step further when he created the New Deal to fight the Great Depression—once again, an excuse for massive Progressive intervention—and then World War II.

By 1945 the federal government was simply “too big to fail”, and all the layers of emergency powers that had accreted over the previous thirty years became permanent bureaucratic institutions. Once initiated, a new federal program was virtually never abandoned. No cabinet office has ever been abolished—new ones can be created, but they cannot be destroyed; they may only persist and grow.

Decade after decade the government has continued to expand, adding agency upon agency and bureau upon bureau. It has sprawled out across the District of Columbia into satellite fiefdoms in Maryland and Northern Virginia and created nests of regional offices across the rest of the nation. Whenever a congressman or senator perceives an important “constituent need”, a new federal function is created and funded, and becomes a permanent fixture in the Washington ecosystem.

Needless to say, all of this is very expensive. For the first thirty years or so of the federal explosion, increased taxes were sufficient to fund the pet projects and Progressive fantasies of the federal mandarins. But then the post-war boom leveled off, even as the Great Society was mandating a thicker layer of lard on top of the government pudding.

Increased taxation was not good enough. Unfortunately for the feds, raising taxes much further had become politically impossible, yet the internal logic of government expansion required that more money be found.

That’s where the Johnson slugs came in.

The uncoupling of the money supply from any reserve of precious metals did not automatically doom the country to inflation, indebtedness, profligacy, and ruin.

If the individual functionaries within the system did their jobs properly—if they acted with probity, prudence, fiduciary integrity, honesty, and in the interests of the people they purportedly served—the fractional reserve system could have continued indefinitely.

But there are too many perverse incentives built into a banking system that is not pegged to any external reserve of actual tangible value. By adding new rules, augmenting existing procedures, and tinkering with the arcana of accounting terminology, new wealth could be created where it didn’t exist before. The Treasury could keep issuing bonds, and as long as the price of milk and shoes didn’t rise too much, why then, everything must be fine, mustn’t it?

But it wasn’t fine. Decade after decade of deficit financing created the infamous national debt, which kept growing and growing. But, once again, as long as productivity increased and the economy kept on expanding, inflation could be kept at bay. The national debt, huge as it was, might theoretically be paid off—someday.

Unfortunately, during the last two decades or so, productivity hasn’t really been as high as it seemed. Our national wealth is now denominated at least partially in assets that are over-valued, with real estate as a notable example. Those California house prices—a million dollars for a tiny bungalow on a postage-stamp lot—might have looked good on the asset side of a balance sheet, but they weren’t real money.

That value was conjured out of thin air by cynical or short-sighted people who gamed the system to their own advantage—quite legally, in most cases. But the wealth thus generated was illusory, and could disappear as easily it was created—which it is even now in the process of doing.

The final stroke which broke the banking system—and caused it to collapse years or decades earlier than it would have otherwise—was meddling by the federal government for political reasons.

Meddling was irresistible. And, without a gold standard to enforce fiscal restraint, it was inevitable. Money could always be created out of nothing, so the federal government created it and ordered its agencies to force the private sector to do certain things with it, things that might otherwise be considered foolish or imprudent.

In the case of the subprime mortgage fiasco—the most visible and notorious example—the federal government created government-protected lending institutions and through them forced banks to loan money to homebuyers who would not otherwise have qualified for the loans, and who could not reasonably be expected to pay them back.

Beginning in the 1970s, and continuing until the whole house of cards collapsed last year, the government used Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—two quasi-government lending institutions which were not bound by normal market constraints—to pump untold billions of dollars into the housing market. Mortgages were issued to people who were poor, or had vaginas, or spoke English badly, or had sufficient melanin in their skin—because they deserved them. Never mind whether they could afford them: it was unfair for them not to own houses, and so the mortgages were issued, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.

The rules kept being eased, the system got more corrupt, more and more money flowed through more and more hands, creating an ever-increasing supply of perverse incentives for bureaucrats and businesses to lie, to manipulate the rules, and to line their own pockets.

In the process the demand for real estate increased, driving the price of housing far beyond what it would otherwise be, thus creating the real estate “boom”—which was actually a bubble, and which has now officially popped.

During this period baroque new rules emerged to facilitate the issuing of additional debt. Exotic new financial derivatives were designed. Accounting rules for valuing assets were loosened. Bond-rating agencies were corrupted by their dependence on the institutions whose debt they rated. The securitization of debt removed the traded derivatives ever farther from anything of tangible value. Debt instruments were used as collateral on new debt, which was in turn used as collateral on yet more debt, until the money supply became so attenuated and rarefied that it had almost no connection with anything real. The entire elaborate financial structure of the country’s banking system was spun out of the purest speculative gossamer.

And at every level of the process somebody took a cut, so everyone worked very hard to increase the size of the pie.

In order to issue all those worthless mortgages, the ultimate guarantor—Uncle Sam—had to create the money by borrowing it himself. T-bills were issued, and buyers snapped them up.

Many of the customers for US Treasury paper were foreign governments, especially in Asia. The Chinese accumulated a large surplus of dollars, and recycled them by buying up more dollar-denominated debt. As long as China kept producing cheap products and exporting them to us, the process could continue. Our manufacturing capacity was diminished, and our money flowed out of the country to buy Chinese goods. But they kept loaning it back to us so that we could continue to fund the federal behemoth and its profligate habits.

The entire system depends on confidence in the dollar—as long as foreign countries continue to believe that real value lies behind the dollar, and that the American economy is strong enough to withstand this level of debt, they will continue to loan money to us, and pump liquidity into the system.

But confidence in the dollar won’t last. It can’t, because all those dollars in circulation, held in reserves in central banks all over the world, are not backed up by enough collateral. The last estimate I read—which was over a month ago, and real estate prices have presumably dropped even further since then—placed the number of dollars in circulation and held in reserves all over the world as thirteen times the amount of tangible assets in the U.S. financial institutions that back them up. That is, if all the holders of dollars across the globe decided to exchange them at the same time, the currency would have to be inflated at least 1,300% to redeem them.

With the addition of the recent stimulus package, American debt now exceeds the entire collective wealth of every man, woman, and child in the United States.

And this debt is almost entirely collateralized by confidence in the dollar. There’s nothing else backing up our currency.

The national debt is even more alarming if our unfunded liabilities are taken into consideration. One of the ways that successive presidential administrations kept deficits to a theoretically manageable level was by putting the Social Security Trust Fund “off-budget”—i.e., outside of its fiscal calculations. The “Trust Fund”, of course, is a joke—there’s nothing in it but IOUs. The FICA money that is withheld from your paycheck and contributed by your employer disappears instantly into the insatiable maw of federal spending, leaving only a promise that your retirement fund will be available for you when you are ready to collect it. Your future Social Security, like all things federal, depends solely on the “full faith and credit of the United States Government”, a commodity whose value is dropping precipitously.

One recent estimate puts the unfunded liability of Social Security and Medicare—the money which the system will be statutorily required to provide for today’s citizens at some point in the future—at more than $100 trillion. And that’s just for the two biggest federal entitlements—add to them federal pensions, veterans’ benefits, and state, local, and private pensions, and the amount of unfunded liability is unimaginably huge.

All those hundreds of trillions of dollars are mandated by law and must someday be paid out. Yet the money is not there now—where will it come from?

And “someday” is drawing rapidly closer. Much of the unfunded liability will begin to come into play in the next few years as my generation, the Boomers, begins to retire and claim all its benefits. That’s why political leaders of both parties are so keen to get Pedro and Ahmed into the country—they’re looking for somebody, anybody, who will go to work and pay the FICA and income tax necessary to support the Beautiful People as they shuffle off into assisted living.

But it’s not going to work. Even if all the immigrants were skilled and ready to work, even if mass immigration were not doomed to destroy the culture and civil society that holds this entire Potemkin village together, even if the multicultural dream could be fully realized—even if everything else were ideal, the system would not be able to handle the load. The conclusion is inescapable: the persistence of our current political arrangements is fiscally and actuarially impossible.

This is the broad context in which the current financial crisis has emerged.

The system is going to fail. Failure is unavoidable. The big questions are:

1. How soon will it fail?

2. What form will that failure take?

3. How much civil unrest, violence, deprivation, and destruction will accompany the changeover to whatever new system emerges?

The broad outlines of what is to come are already visible. The banking systems of the West are heading for insolvency, and no amount of bailout money is going to save all the major banks. Bailing them out will only serve to delay the catastrophe and make it worse when it finally arrives. Real value to match the newly-created bailout money does not exist, and at some point the market will mark everything down to its true worth, destroying roughly 90% of the system’s wealth in the process.

One of the first symptoms of the collapse will be a run on the dollar. When confidence finally erodes past a certain point, speculators will start to unload their dollars en masse, and the U.S. government will have to choose between inflating the currency or defaulting on its obligations.

The United States is at the epicenter of the banking crisis, but the European currencies are feeling the pinch first. With the Austrian banks facing the default of Eastern European debt, the euro may be in trouble, and sterling is also widely rumored to be near collapse. The dollar is maintaining its value relative to these currencies (and the yen), but all of them are in the same boat. It won’t be long before investors start unloading their reserves of currency and taking refuge in gold, silver, platinum, and other non-perishable commodities whose value is expected to outlast whatever unpleasantness lies ahead.

After that the major Western nations will experience an unprecedented fiscal and monetary crisis. Mass insolvency, bank failure, an inability to meet entitlement payments, and the suspension of normal commercial activity will be the result.

The modern global economy depends on mass consumption by the wealthy Western democracies of goods produced by the Third World and purchased by savings borrowed from the Third World. This part of the system is already in retreat—consumption in the West has dropped dramatically, Chinese exports have collapsed, and the Chinese are signaling their unwillingness to loan us more money unless we can guarantee that we won’t inflate our currency to pay off our debts. What sane person would believe such a guarantee, even if the Treasury were so foolish as to offer it? The inflation is coming, and the current system will grind to a halt.

We are, in a word, screwed.

All of this will not just happen. None of the unfortunate consequences will occur in a vacuum, and there will be reactions and counter-reactions on the part of governments and the public, which will make the system chaotic and unpredictable.

Governments will continue to intervene to “fix” the market, and by doing so will generally make the problems worse. Riots, civil wars, insurrection, and revolution will be likely if the maintenance dose of government cash is withdrawn from recipients in the major welfare states. Many other negative consequences are probable, but no one knows when, where, and how much.

Even the wisest and most skilled political leadership would find it difficult to intervene in a way that would mitigate the worst effects. At some point the market will have to realistically revalue the system’s assets, and the results will be painful. The consequences can only be postponed, and thus made more severe; they cannot be avoided.

Unfortunately, wise and skilled political leadership is in short supply all across the West. Our social democracies—with their welfare systems and ideologically uniform media—do not reward risk-takers and visionaries. Cynical time-servers, technocrats, obedient functionaries, and corrupt fixers tend to rise to the top. This is the cohort who will be leading the charge with broom-handle and dustbin lid during the coming debacle.

So far Congress and the Obama administration seem determined to do the worst possible things, economically speaking. Pumping more debt into the system, bailing out inefficient and unprofitable private companies, increasing pork-barrel spending and patronage, nationalizing financial institutions, rewarding corrupt and incompetent administrators, raising taxes, increasing regulation… How much more perverse can they get?

Giving bankruptcy judges the right to “adjust” interest rates on individual mortgages will serve only to distort the credit markets further and make the crash much worse when it finally arrives. Appropriating vast quantities of public funds to force a restructuring of private mortgages is senseless when the market value of the mortgaged real estate is half the face value of those loans, and dropping fast.

Barack Obama has assumed the role of King Canute in the current farce, sitting on the foreshore with his hand raised, ordering the tide to stop. A pathetic and futile gesture, but one that he and all the other leaders must inevitably make. They have no other solutions.

“Tide, I command thee: turn back!”

There are a few possible positive aspects of the current mess. As the crisis matures, supra-national institutions will fail and become irrelevant before nation-states do. Individual nations will reclaim their authority and sovereignty in an attempt to take care of their own.

Here in the United States, in the face of new unfunded mandates, trillions of dollars of federal largesse with strings attached, and volumes of new federal regulations, the several States have suddenly recalled the Tenth Amendment and are invoking their own sovereignty. This is all to the good, because for the last sixty years or so the federal government has extended its effective reach by dangling money before the states and making them dance for it. As the money disappears, the dance will come to an end. Without a bottomless cash drawer, the federal government is a pathetic weakling, and most power will eventually devolve to the states.

Another possible spinoff of the coming financial collapse is that the problem of Islam will solve itself. One of the consequences of the depression is that the demand for oil has dropped dramatically, and the price will be low for years. Not only will the sheikhs lose much of their income, but many of them are heavily leveraged and live on the margin, with their assets tied up in the Western financial markets. Like everyone else, they will see most of their wealth disappear.

And, unlike many other countries, the oil-dependent states of the Middle East have nothing else to fall back on. When the oil money disappears, that’s it. The entire population—millions of people on the Arabian peninsula and in Iran—subsists on state oil revenues, directly or indirectly.

The effects of this are already becoming evident. Hundreds of thousands of guest-workers in Saudi Arabia and the emirates are being sent home to Malaysia, Indonesia, Nepal, Bangladesh, and the Philippines. These latter countries will thus experience the unfortunate secondary effects of the collapse of oil prices. Given that most of the rest of their economy depends on the manufacture of cheap consumer goods for the West, they will be in serious trouble.

If this process is severe and goes on long enough, rioting, civil insurrection, and revolution may well give way to epidemics and actual mass starvation all across the long crescent of Islam’s bloody borders, from Marrakech to Mindanao.

All of the above is pure speculation.

I’m a rank amateur when it comes to economics and finance. Over the past three months I have read and digested a huge volume of information in an attempt to understand the catastrophe that is unfolding in slow motion around us.

I don’t know if my prognostications are correct. Unfortunately, no one else can predict what’s going to happen, either. The current situation is unprecedented. It is inherently unstable, chaotic, and unpredictable. Don’t believe anyone who says he knows what will happen next year. No one does.

Preliminary indications are that the global economy has actually been a planet-wide Ponzi scheme since at least the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Like any other Ponzi scheme, it depended on a constant infusion of new suckers. As long as the world’s population was expanding, and the efficiency of industrial production was increasing, the fiscal bubble could continue to inflate.

But the dream is over, and the bill is coming due. The bubble has popped. The scheme is collapsing. The entire finance system will soon become like 1997 Albania writ large.

When the fever has run its course, a new system will emerge. Eventually the market will reassert itself, and production and consumption will resume.

But how much trouble and sorrow lies ahead of us is hard to predict.

Given that the economy of the United States will take the biggest hit—and has the farthest to fall—the era of American hegemony will almost certainly come to an end within the next decade. On balance this will be a salutary thing for the rest of the world. Europe will learn to deal with Russia and Iran on its own. Third World dictatorships will have to extort protection money from a different client. The Japanese will rapidly discover the value of missile defense and a strong military. All the fires that have been prevented or contained by American military power will rage unchecked until their human fuel is fully consumed.

And America will persist in some form, perhaps in several pieces, or as a loose confederation that will warm the heart of Jefferson Davis’ ghost.

Or perhaps we will continue as a single nation, much poorer and unable to project power abroad, but ruled by a despotic central government wielding a citizens’ army of multicultural block wardens to keep the citizenry in line—a continent-wide Cuba from sea to shining sea.

Or perhaps some other currently unimaginable form of government and civil society will emerge.

The only thing that’s certain is that the system cannot continue for much longer in its present form. The laws of economics—which are nothing more than a mathematical model describing what must happen—tell us that a collapse of some sort is unavoidable.

You will know changes soon.

The Red Giant

by Conservative Swede

In England one must rehabilitate oneself after every little emancipation from theology by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring manner what a moral fanatic one is. That is the penance they pay there. —We others hold otherwise. When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet.

—Nietzsche


stellan_skarsgard

The below text has been excerpted from an August 2007 blog entry by Conservative Swede and a July 2009 exchange on the forum Gates of Vienna.

 

We are witnessing the historical demise of Christianity. When a star dies, in its last phase it expands into a red giant, before it shrinks into a white dwarf. Liberalism is the red giant of Christianity. And just as a red giant is devoid of its core, it expands thousandfold while losing its substance and is about to die. The world I live in consists of Christians and liberals. It’s their world and I do not belong to them. I leave their limited wars, knee-jerk Islam apologism and World War II mythology to them. They are not about to change. On the contrary, they are continuously generating new problems with their way of acting.

There were certain sites, certain bloggers, even certain countries, that I had put hope in. But now it has become clear that they are all part of the same big train of lemmings. Bye bye! Denmark, nope. Brussels Journal, nope. View from the Right, nope. Gates of Vienna, nope. This is the way it goes in the world of liberals and Christians. It’s their world. I can do nothing but sit on the side and laugh at it. They are too stuck in their inner fears and hang-ups to be able to do anything useful. They will do what they are programmed to do: demise. These people are just not prepared for a proper fight. They are too much driven by superstitious fear and emotions. And there is not exactly anyone else around.

So what’s the future for people like me? Because even if I belong nowhere politically, I belong somewhere socially and ethnically. Well, the world is being homogenized. Tomorrow the whole world will be like the Third World. People like me, of European ethnicity, will have no home, no nation. We will live like the Jews as elites in other people’s nations (preferably a non-Muslim nation).

* * *

I have written: “People today live in a historyless, now-bubble-world, and have forgotten about all previous such complete [axiological] reversals, many of which happened in the last century,” therefore the widespread and deep sense of hopelessness, I forgot to add.

It’s hard to conceptualize a situation outside of the bubble, or the bubble not being there, when living inside of the bubble. However, history provides us with numerous examples of such reversals, of bubbles bursting, and of course new bubbles being built (we are bubble mammals after all). This is my happy message, my gospel. People just need to let go their precious beliefs and myths, these huggy teddy bears. When deeply invested in the core beliefs of the bubble, it becomes impossible to look outside of the bubble, to think of a world without the bubble, and everything looks utterly hopeless. Well, it’s not. On the contrary, the bubble will burst.

Unlike how it is presented, the relation between left and right is not symmetrical. Instead the left is the norm, and the people to the left are the holy people of secular Christianity. The right is just dancing along, effectively not being much more than an alibi for the whole setup, dancing in circles around the left, who is the one setting up the direction of “progression.” Occasionally pulling the break, but never setting up a new general course. The direction of the course is built into the paradigm, and never fundamentally questioned by the right.

Another evidence for the asymmetry between left and right is how right-wingers fear and loathe to be associated with any person or organization even slightly to the right of themselves (they feel that this would totally undermine their reputation), while willing to make connections magnitudes further into the left. Such as appearing in left-wing media, which often makes these right-wingers hilarious, since they feel they have gotten a stamp of approval thereby; while they can be paralyzed by fear of the thought of being published in a right-wing magazine just slightly to the right of themselves.

America is seen as right-wing in the current political theater. However, historically America together with France has been the main force in pushing our civilization to the left.

After World War II European patriotism was seen as the root of the evil, which had to be held down. The only permitted patriotisms were American and Israeli. Britain and France got away with some, but after the Suez crisis in 1956 they were effectively out of the picture too. Now offensive military actions were only accepted from America and Israel.

In the 1950s and the 60s America and Israel were celebrated as model countries of progressivism. European conservatism had been rooted out in the cultural revolution imposed by America in Western Europe. But the Europeans learned fast. First they learned to follow the American example and see America as the model country. The Europeans could pick this up fast since the ideas were rooted in the Christian gospels. But soon they learned that America didn’t live up to code of moral goodness that they had imposed on the Europeans. And left-wing anti-Americanism was born. And to be precise, even anti-Americanism wasn’t born in Europe but also imported from the US. The problem for America was that in their quest to end all “evil” empires, they had effectively become the big empire themselves, for example by inheriting the role of maintaining the Pax Britannica. Then they had to do all the sort of things they had taught the Europeans were wrong. The Europeans soon learned to beat the Americans in their own game, becoming the leading in progressivism and “holier than thou.” And curiously enough, thus America ended up being seen as right-wing. The original right-wing had been rooted out in a collaboration between America and the European socialists in the wake of World War II. The turning point came by the end of the 1960s—the Vietnam war and the Six-Days war. The image of America and Israel shifted, and they were no longer seen as the model countries of progressivism but as “evil” right-wing countries.

We should remember that our progressivist paradigm (which is always going left) is based on Christian ethics. And Christian ethics means the inversion of values. So it’s the weak that is considered good, while the strong is considered evil. In World War I and World War II America had defeated all the strong (and therefore evil) European empires. The job was completed in the Suez crisis in 1956 by turning against their former allies. But you can never win with Christian ethics, because now America became the strong one, and therefore the evil one. So now American and Israeli patriotism becomes highly questioned and opposed, though not based on restoring any other patriotism but by going even deeper into deranged progressivism. Thus, in effect, American and Israeli patriotism are still the only permitted patriotisms. Surely now the holiest priests of our leftist paradigm condemn the actions of America and Israel. But in effect it is tolerated, while if any other (white) country acts militarily offensively it’s seen as a major global crisis (e.g. Serbia, Russia). So this gives a background to why Geert Wilders, Vlaams Belang, etc., have a pro-American and pro-Israeli profile, and even stress these patriotisms more than their own.

When the threat of Islam is added to the historical situation I gave above, there are westerners who wake up from their deranged progressivism. But they generally revert back to the 1950s (myself I reverted to before World War I). In the face of the Islamic aggression their patriotism gets heightened. But this is a patriotism based on a narrative of hate of Germany and Russia.

So when intensifying this American patriotism in order to build-up the necessary hate against Islam, the hate against Russia and Germany heightens simultaneously. There does not seem to be a way to slide this parameter up without this happening. NATO was after all built on the motto of “Keeping Russia out, Germany down, and America in.” And since this narrative in its previous step is based on the de-legitimization of European patriotism in general, and how hate and demonization of Germans is the blueprint for white guilt and self-hatred, we have a more general problem here too.

* * *

There’s surely no way to stop the chaos coming. But just as surely, from the ashes of the chaos, a fantastic renaissance will grow. We will prevail, severely hurt yes, but with an ironclad inspired spirit. I just hope the chaos will start soon enough, so that I will be able to live when the turnaround happens.

My conclusion is that we’ll have to revert far back in history in order to find something sustainable to build on, to cut off the rotten and infected areas. For some things a hundred years, for some a thousand years. It’s definitely not enough to revert the social revolution of the ’68.

 

Gates of Vienna’s Ned May said:

Part of the modern Liberal ideal is the foolish notion that we can simply abolish by fiat millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition.

 

Conservative Swede responded:

This is a very important sentence which conveys so very much, if we just examine it closely. Not only the liberals, but also most people (anti-liberals), who see and fear the fall of the liberal world order, have forgotten that these things cannot be erased.

But neither the rise nor the fall of liberalism can take away millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition. This is what Chechar refers to as my optimism. It’s just following the conservative principle you gave here. But unfortunately the effect of the current belief system is so strong even on anti-liberals, that they cannot see that.

So it’s the liberal layer (on top of evolution, culture, and traditions) that will get peeled off, together with those traditions that led to liberalism in the first place.

The fall of this liberal world order will hit us hard (together with the destruction that liberalism has already caused). But we won’t suddenly just disappear. And as long as we are around we have millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition on our side.

Even if there would be only 100 millions left of us, we are the best people in the history of mankind. As Huntington pointed out, we have always been superior in the ability to apply organized violence. As soon as the will power is there, we can achieve anything we please. We can rule any continent where we choose to live, as long as the liberal layer gets peeled off. And it’s bound to come off, since it’s just a cosmetic layer. The reason that it has not come off yet is that it has not yet become obvious to the collective mind that it has failed. But that is about to change.

* * *

Norse mythology is a much more useful mythological narrative than Christianity, which does not only mean adherence to universalist individualism and the importation of a foreign god (and in its final stages the importation of a lot of other immigrants), but also has a mythological narrative where the survival of our own people hold no significance whatsoever.

The only people that are guaranteed to survive until the end of days in Christianity are the Jews. Swedes, Italians etc., are of no significance whatsoever. We see all these tenets of Christianity manifested around us today: even in how the struggle for ethnic survival of the Jews is accepted within our current paradigm, while it is not accepted for the other people of our civilization. Each ethnic group needs her great mythological narrative, starting with the birth of her people and guaranteeing their existence until the end of times. Without such a narrative the dissolution of the ethnic group eventually becomes self-fulfilling: there’s nothing holding it together.

We see this happening around us in the very now with eager work to dissolve our countries and ethnic groups. In Christianity the Germanic people cannot (as a people) have a relation with god, only the Jewish people has. Germanic (and other) people can only have a relation with god as individuals. People are directed by myths more than anything else, so with a narrative where your ethnic group is of no importance, it will eventually become self-fulfilling (i.e., the opposite effect of self-confidence as a group).

 

A commenter said:

In that case, I would be very interested to hear what you propose should be done to save western civilisation.

 

Conservative Swede responded:

And there is your assumption again: that the Western Christian civilization should be saved, that it can be reformed, be mended; while I’m assuming that the current order, the current belief system, will self-implode. And as the current order is the last and terminal phase of Western Christian civilization, which has reached a dead end, this means the end of Western Christian civilization as such. Yes, we are seeing something like the fall of Rome before us.

I’ve been clear about this from the very beginning. For example, three days ago I wrote: “Likewise many people, who are ideologically invested in the current paradigm instead of in their ethnic group, will see the fall of the Western Christian civilization as the end of the world; commit suicide etc. But instead the fall of the Western Christian civilization should be celebrated. This is the paradigm that stands in the way of our saviour. This is the key knot in need to be untied.”

Yes: the Western Christian civilization is exactly the problem, and the problem is solved by it going away.

What we should hold on to are our ethnic groups and European civilization and culture in the deeper sense. Western Christian civilization is a novelty and now it failed. Western Christian civilization is just the tip of that iceberg. It’s just a way of politically organizing our peoples. We should not save this format, but save the matter.

The Western Christian civilization is what happened when Germanic people met Christianity. But nothing lasts forever. Quite as the Roman Empire it can be compared with a fruit, going through all the stages: bud, flower, incipient fruit, green fruit, ripe fruit, overripe fruit, rotten fruit. With this I’m saying: (1) indeed Western Christian civilization has meant many good things, and (2) it’s all over now.

It is unsustainable for Germanic people to keep Christianity. It would indeed mean their death. And since the Western Christian civilization is all about Germanic people meeting Christianity, the necessary turnaround for Germanic people also means the definitive end of Western Christian civilization. Africans and Italians sticking to Christianity does not make a Western Christian civilization.

When I talk of Christianity I use it in the same sense as Huntington or Qutb. That is, it doesn’t matter those who claim to be atheists, they are equally much Christians in this perspective. In fact, you will find that they stick to Christian ethics even stronger than the nominal Christians: trying to be holier than thou, as if trying to get in line before the nominal Christians to the heaven they don’t believe in.

Medieval Catholicism was nicely mixed and balanced with Roman and Greek components. The explosive and revolutionary message of the gospels was kept secret from the general public. The Protestant Reformation changed that. Christianity became purified into its Hebrew component, and the explosive and revolutionary message of the gospels were set free. This purification was taken even further, and completed, by the Puritans and the Quakers that left across the Atlantic, to found America. And these are the people who rule our civilization today.

There are several reasons why Christianity leads to secularism in its latter phases. Let me get back to that if there is interest, since this is becoming very long as it is.

Secular Christianity has thrown out god and Christ, but keeps the Christian ethics (inversion of values etc.). And the Christian ethics actually gets heightened and unfettered in Secular Christianity. (I have written much about that in my blog.) With Christ as part of the equation, the Christian ethics of the Gospels became balanced. Humans were seen as imperfect and it was Christ who covered for us with his self-sacrifice. In Secular Christianity each person has to be like Jesus himself, doing self-sacrifice, since there’s no other way to realize Christian ethics. On top of that, with the Industrial Revolution and the surplus it created in our societies, we came to the point where all the good deeds of Christian ethics could finally be executed by giving off our surplus to all the poor and weak foreign people around the world: food, Western medicine, and other aid.

Thus the Western Christian civilization caused the population explosion in the Third World. It is entirely caused by the Western Christian civilization, since these Third World countries were completely unable to do this themselves. Christian ethics commands that every single human life should be saved if possible. Before, more than half of the children in Third World countries died. Now virtually all survive, and we have the population explosion.

What this will lead to is the following:

With the dollar collapse and the complete breakdown of our economical (and then political) world order, mass starvation will spread like a wildfire across the southern hemisphere. This since their population numbers are not supported by themselves, but entirely backed by us. It will all fall apart.

So the concrete effect of Christian ethics here is to make the number of people that will die in starvation and suffering as high as possible once it hits (we are speaking of billions thanks to Christian ethics). Only the devil himself could think out such a brutally cruel scheme, and Christian ethics of course, in which case it’s according to the idiom “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

But that’s not enough. This mass starvation, where we can expect something like two thirds of the people dying in the Third World countries, will slash these societies into pieces, and they will meet a complete breakdown.

In the alternative scenario, where the Christian ethics would have kept its fingers away, these countries would have supported themselves: every year many children would have died at a pretty constant pace. But this is a stable phenomenon that does not at all threaten the stability of their societies. When the Western economical order falls apart, they would not be the least affected.

But Christian ethics cannot stand the sight of little brown children dying. They must help them, or they will freak out. They cannot keep their fingers away. So they are dooming them to mass starvation in the billions and complete breakdowns of their societies. This is the concrete effect of Christian ethics.

At this point it wouldn’t help putting back god and Christ into the equation. Instead we need to leave Christian ethics.

I have already stated how Western Christian civilization = Germanic people + Christianity. I will now clarify why specifically Germanic people need to leave Christianity.

Look at the phenomenon of clan mentality around the world. In many places around the world it is strong, in Europe it is not. But even within Europe there are clear differences. Indeed we find clan mentality in Southern Europe, while there’s none of it in Northern Europe (among Germanic people).

There are historical reasons for this. In the cold north people lived far apart. Human contacts were few, and strangers were therefore treated with friendliness. This was the best survival strategy in this context. However, the Mediterranean area was crowded, and there was always competition about land and resources. The best survival strategy in such a context was to stick to your clan, in this tight competition.

The whole point of Christian ethics, when it works well, is to have a balancing effect on the morality of people. In the Mediterranean area it had a balancing effect on the natural clan mentality, leaving a good result. However, Germanic people, as described above, have a natural altruism. When combined with the unfettered Christian ethics of the latter stages of the Western Christian civilization, it creates an interference that goes completely out of bounds. The morality of Germanic people has reached a point where it has to be balanced back, or we will perish. To create this balance Germanic people have to leave Christian ethics. (Romance and Slavic people can keep Christianity. It’s not a matter of life or death for them.)

What we are witnessing in the present time is the great tragedy of Germanic people.

With the lack of clan mentality, we find that Germanic people are the ones that most faithfully turn their loyalty towards the nation. But due to the inherent universalism of Christianity, we see in the current incarnation of Western Christian civilization how nations are considered illegitimate and gradually being dissolved. The nationalist loyalty of the Germanic people becomes redirected to universalist loyalty; still lacking of clan mentality.

Germanic people do not use the power of their family to solve problems. They go to a higher level, the authorities. To use the power of your family to solve a problem is here considered a sin, we are supposed to abide to the law. In Italy or Spain people do use the power of their family to solve problems.

There is an abundance of stories in blogs from Northern Europe of kids who go through their whole school time being beaten up by Muslim on a weekly basis. The furthest the parents of these children would do is to bring up the problem with the authorities (and possibly having a “dialog” with the Muslim parents). Which of course will do nothing about it, since the belief system of the authorities doesn’t allow for it. And even so the parents never use the power of their family to deal with the problem. They are programmed to abide to the law and the order.

I cannot see this happening in Italy or Spain. There is a whole different mentality. There would be an outrage, and the whole family would be engaged in the matter. Mostly not going into mafia methods, but in some places yes.

Germanic people are simply wired the wrong way to being able to survive in a multiethnic context. Or to be exact: Germanic people adhering to Christian ethics are. We managed fine in the age of the great migrations and as Vikings.

Now we are entering a world of multiethnic societies at a planetary level. And the Germanic people adhering to Christian ethics are constitutionally unfit for this. Unless we leave Christian ethics, we will perish. Or rather, those who cling to Christian ethics will perish, according to the law of the survival of the fittest.

Leaving Christian ethics has nothing to do with becoming secular (as I explained above). To the contrary, it makes it worse! What is needed is to introduce another great mythological narrative into the minds of the Germanic people. This is the only way to replace the moral grammar of Christianity. Something with roots in our long history. This must be done by political means, by a regime with such a focus. But given that focus, it’s not such a big thing to achieve. There are numerous historical examples of how to do it. And it only takes a generation to make the change (even less). And in a dire situation, after a major trauma, it will be even easier.

And thus we are speaking of the deepest level of a paradigm change here. Our very concept of good and bad, our moral grammar, has to be transformed. In sort of perspective, even the apparent moral tautology “We should strive for what is good, and fight against what is bad” no longer holds true.

Our very concepts of good and bad is what has to be transformed. It’s hard to think outside of this box. But that’s the whole point of the word paradigm. It’s a box that it is virtually impossible for people in general to think outside of. I recommend reading Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for a deeper understanding of the concept paradigm. It’s truly a mental box we are trapped within. In the same way we are about to witness the transformation of our whole grammar of morality, quite as our grammar of morality was different before the Age of Christianity.

When the paradigm shifted from Newton to Einstein, it didn’t mean the end of science. I just meant the end of a scientific era, which became replaced with a new one. In the same manner the fall of the Western Christian civilization does not mean the end of European civilization in the larger sense. It just means a new era. Quite as when the Roman-Greek civilization was replaced by the Western Christian.

 

Commenter said:

The latter, being literalists, conceived of themselves as the direct successors to the ancient Israelites who had been given divine authority to kill the Canaanites and establish Israel. The Protestants looked on themselves as the New Israelites and the Native Americans as the New Canaanites to be wiped out.

 

Conservative Swede responded:

It’s sad indeed that Christians have to imagine themselves as Israelites in order to become truly good fighters, which implies effective total war, and the psychology of will power to win at any cost.

Once again it is the same pattern of Christianity that I discussed above, when discussing permitted patriotisms. Our own ethnicity is utterly insignificant in the Christian narrative, while the Jewish ethnicity holds a pivotal position. So Christians have to use this substitute ethnicity to find true confidence and strength.

Good total war has been waged by Christians when imagining themselves as Israelites aiming for building the New Jerusalem. They can also fight limited war in the name of the universal good, or for the sake of Israel (for example the crusades).

But war by Christians in the name of their own ethnicity is considered illegitimate; well, not even of importance. In Christianity we cannot be ourselves. We have to pretend we are someone else.

I still think the Russians can use their Christianity in an efficient way, just since their Christianity hasn’t been washed through the Enlightenment, quite as the American pilgrims and the Boers, discussed above, hadn’t. Nor Spain of La Reconquista, of course. But we can stay assured that the Christians having been washed through the Enlightenment—and then the Industrial Age, liberalism and secularism—won’t be able to see themselves as Israelites. So this strength is not coming back within the context of Christianity.

Why not be ourselves instead? Replace the current mythological narrative with one where we are ourselves. After all, that is the simple truth: We are ourselves. Christianity is based on deception and distortion of reality. Another way to go, for those unable to imagine themselves as the Israelites, is at least to make Christianity universal instead of Jewish. Such as we saw recently here at Gates of Vienna in how many people in Poland for example do not see Jesus as Jewish. There’s no way to win within the frames of Christianity…

 

Commenter said:

I agree that Christianity is at the end of its tether and is unable to assert itself without breaking its own value system. Probably something similar must have happened in India during Muslim invasions, where Buddhist ideas of compassion and Karma (you get what you deserve, because you produced the cause) left them completely defenseless. They indeed had no narrative that would support their collective existence.

 

Conservative Swede responded:

This is an excellent historical comparison. An universalist religion of goodness is replaced with the original national gods, when faced with a threat of existential magnitude.

 

Commenter said:

Altogether, yours is the most complete argument for the death of Christianity I can imagine, certainly more complete than what Nietzsche has ever written.

 

Conservative Swede responded:

Thanks, that’s a very nice thing to say. Of course, I had an unfair advantage, since I could read Nietzsche but he couldn’t read me.

 

Commenter said:

I am always impressed by the fact that the further North you go in Europe, where people are more Germanic, the more harmonious mastery of mind over nature you can see.

 

Conservative Swede responded:

Yes, we have focused on fighting nature instead of each other. All due to our historical situation. If we didn’t fight nature we died. If we hadn’t isolated our house and stored up well for the winter we died. Out of this a special kind of cooperation between people grew. A traditionalist form of egalitarianism, which apart from Sweden and Norway we only find in America (this is an interesting topic in itself, but no time for that now). However, if you put unfettered Christian ethics on top of that…

* * *

A necessary condition for such a Germanic project—and for the renaissance of Europe altogether!—is the return of Germany. Germany today is the planetary bully victim, bound and caged in many layers of chains and bars. Not permitted to show even a single shred of national self-confidence. We won’t see that until American troops have left Germany and the whole NATO regime has been reversed. But it will come. Rest assured.

Above is the first step, and, let’s say, how far I think we’ll come in this century. We will be in a situation with China as the great power. There will also be competition with Russia. Probably China will be first in occupying the oil fields around the Persian Gulf, but we will be competing with them about it.

America together with France and Britain will be utterly discredited, seen as the guilty ones for the greatest treason in the history of mankind against their own people (as Fjordman put it); while Germany was completely innocent in this, and will hold the morally superior position.

France might no longer exist, having first been overrun by Muslims, and then reconquered by Germanic people.

The United States will no longer exist. But the Confederation of the Northern US States will be a natural ally to the Germanics.

Maybe there will be something as a Germanic empire at this point. Or maybe even two, one German speaking and one English speaking. But I’m not as sure about the English speaking one (I’m not saying people won’t speak English, only that there might not be a separate empire with English as the official language).

Will American troops reside in Germany forever? No. When it comes to the imminent fall of the current order, there are too many factors in motion at the same time that each alone has the potential of making it fall: dollar collapse, ethnic civil war, Iranian nukes, weak and paralyzed leadership.

I find Germanic people boring and square, but sort of brilliant (history clearly shows that). After about a decade out in the cold, I have once again taken Germanic people to my heart because I can see their great tragedy. I think I can see their dilemma and how to solve it while at the same time it makes perfect sense for Poles, Spaniards and Celts to take an interest in this for the political stability it would give to all of Europe, once the current order falls. Without it there would be a huge power vacuum.

Who would expand into that? Russia, China, Islam? Or first Islam, then Russia, and finally China? That’s the good thing with the day the American troops leave Germany, because at that time the Germanic European will be forced to immediately build a strong military power. And you could imagine how many of the good things that we have discussed here would be catalyzed by that.

When I say that I want Christian ethics to go away, it’s not because I want to see a 180 degree turn away from it. Instead it is Christianity that ended up in steep imbalance. What I want to do is to balance things back. So what I have suggested is:

1) A new great mythological narrative where our own ethnic group is given the pivotal position; 2) A constitution where citizenship is reserved for people of our ethnic group. 3) Alien ethnic groups, typically from the Third World, that do not identify with our ethnic group, will have to be removed one way or the other.

* * *

I think it is clear that the people won’t turn away from the current belief system with less than a major catastrophe.

But this time the catastrophe is not something as benign as a “Western civil war,” but something of a higher magnitude, and of real external threats (which we are not the least prepared for). If we had only been facing something as harmless as World War I or World War II, I wouldn’t have been speaking of the end of the Western Christian civilization. If there only had been two strong sides of the West fighting each other to death, we wouldn’t have been facing this discontinuity of our civilization.

But now it is our very belief system that makes us unable to fight and defend our civilization. And the threat is external, and when we lose, it means this discontinuity. Losing here means losing our dominant position, not that everything is lost.

Our current empire will fall, that is, America, and not to another Western empire as before—since this time there is no one standing in line—but to external forces.

If we do not meet a major catastrophe within the next twenty years, we will be silently walking into our demographic eclipse, something that could indeed mean the end European civilization and the values that you have talked about. The demographic forces in motion are so great, yes exponential. Not so much our declining birth rates, but the population explosion in the Third World that we are causing and the mass immigration and demographic Jihad in our own lands. If this process continues we will end up in Diaspora as the Jews. And with white people as a mere 2-3% of the world’s population and without our own homeland, that’s indeed the end of European civilization altogether, and we can say goodbye to the manifestation of all these values that you and I cherish.

It’s the Western Christian civilization that feeds all these processes (population explosion etc.). So the Western Christian civilization is in fact the worst enemy of what I call European civilization: another reason for wanting the Western Christian civilization to go away. If it would continue a few decades more it will mean the definitive goodnight for all of us.

So to summarize: When I speak of civilization as in the Western Christian civilization, I speak of a concrete manifestation, an empire. And when I speak of civilization as in European civilization, I speak of the existence and self-government of white people, and the values and life style that is integral in our beings. But now we have come to a point where the former is the greatest threat to the latter.

In Aristotelian terms European civilization is the matter to the Western Christian civilization, which is the form. That is, white people is the matter for the current Western Christian “empire.” But now the form is suffocating the matter.

 

Chechar said: [1]

“It’s the Western Christian civilization that feeds all these processes.” Why do you say this? Wasn’t everything relatively okay up to the 1950s, before the radical feminists almost took away our highest divine right from us: women? If lots of women would still be with us at home having lots of beautiful kids, as the Pope likes, the present problem wouldn’t exist, would it? Doesn’t the sexual revolution is to blame for the demographic winter? And isn’t Islamization of the West a mere by-product of our dwarfing ethnicity? If so why do you blame Western Christian civilization? Rome fell precisely because infanticide (the abortion of classical times) and contraception was practiced massively since the times of Julius Caesar. However, since Constantine and Theodosius the Church made enormous efforts to stop infanticide.

I agree that a major catastrophe is needed. That’s why, as I have iterated elsewhere, every morning I wake up with yearning dreams of mushroom clouds above Western cities to wake me up—and waking up the West. But couldn’t we reject the 1960s revolution without America necessary falling?

Yes: I know you want to delve deeper into the root cause. But I still think that solid arguments based on demographic winter show us that the West took a really wrong turn in the middle ’60s. In mean, the West was still healthy the year in which I was born! (maybe because you were born after that you haven’t seen the healthy West with your own eyes). We tried to trick the god Eros through contraception and the liberation of women. We are suffering now for having messed with the laws of Nature. Our present problems with a revived Islam are Venus’ revenge. Curious, eh, that I am not a Christian—like Tannhäuser I look for the grotto of Venus—yet I admire conservative Protestants and Catholics on this issue?

 

Conservative Swede responded:

You need to read more carefully, because you missed my point. I repeat what I said:

The demographic forces in motion are so great, yes exponential. Not so much our declining birth rates, but the population explosion in the Third World that we are causing and the mass immigration and demographic Jihad in our own lands. It’s the Western Christian civilization that feeds all these processes.

Our declining birth rates have a slow effect in comparison with the exponential growth that the population explosion and demographic Jihad means. And it’s exactly because of Christian ethics that people, like for example you, entirely look at our own birth rates (narrowly blaming feminism etc.), instead of focusing on the much bigger and alarming problem caused by us: the population explosion in the Third World.

For the very same reason that Christian ethics abhors infanticide, it causes the population explosion in the world. It’s a deeply held doctrine within Christian ethics that every single human life across the planet must be saved if possible. According to Christian ethics it is forbidden and unthinkable to think in terms of not saving every little brown child across the planet. But the consequences of this mindset are catastrophic, not only for us but also for them, as I have already explained. But since people are so programmed according to Christian ethics, what I’m saying does not seem to enter their heads. The thought is too unthinkable to be absorbed. It’s an utter taboo.

You asked, “Wasn’t everything relatively OK up to the 1950s?” Sure it was. But the better our lives got, the more we destroyed, and the faster we destroyed it. It was exactly in the ’50s that this problem started. In the ’50s people of European descent was 30% of this planet, today we are just a little more than 10%. Not by us decreasing (in fact we are more than in the ’50s) but by the rest of the planet exploding in numbers, from 3 to 7 billion people—all caused by us.

The population of Africa is four and a half times higher than in 1950. And the population in Asia almost three times higher.

As I have already explained: With a highly developed industrial society, the Western people got a huge surplus of resources, and much more time at their hands. Since Christian ethics mandates what it does, they have since went around the world to save every single little life that they could: using Western medicine, modern fertilizers, GMO crops, and all other means possible, in order to keep as many alive as possible. Thus the population explosion.

This is derived from the deepest moral grammar of Christianity. But it took all these centuries until we had an industrialized society that made it possible to enact. And because of that Christian ethics mandated that we caused this Third World population explosion. Something that could never have achieved themselves, which makes our deed so deeply irresponsible in so many ways, just because it’s artificial. Which means (1) they are not adapting their life-style accordingly but continue and continue to explode in numbers, and (2) they are completely depending on us, which means their societies will totally break apart once our economic world order collapses.

That means that we will have to remove the industrial society, if we want to keep Christian ethics. Think over which one you appreciate the most.

You asked, “But couldn’t we reject the ’60s revolution without America necessary falling?… the West took a really wrong turn in the middle 1960s.” No, this is not a matter of reverting the ’60s revolution. It goes far deeper than that. You know, the ’60s revolution wasn’t brought to us by extraterrestrials. There is an internal logic to our civilization, and its ideals, that led to that. It wasn’t an accident. Start looking at the French Revolution.

In general your answer is about rejecting the ’60s and going back to older Christian values, rejecting for example abortion and contraception. But this is just a stronger version of the Christian dogma to save every single human life possible. If anything it would just make the Third World population explosion worse! The population explosion is not caused by liberalism: it is caused by Christianity in its most general form. And if you bring in more deeply Christian people, it will only make it worse.

 

Chechar commented:

When I studied a thick biology text at college, the photo of a Western doctor in the book caught my attention. He was vaccinating dozens upon dozens of black children in Africa!

Instantly I harbored the thought to drop out. How on Earth would a sane person do that, I told myself silently? That deranged altruism was, to my heart, like an industrial factory that produced hundreds of thousands of poor people, like a clone army: future adults who’d have a miserable life anyway. “How am I studying a hard science when the values of mankind are so, er, psychotic,” continued my soliloquy. Of course, it’s impossible that the liberal mentality understands the mind of a post-Christian individual.

 

Conservative Swede said:

First the dollar bubble will burst, and soon after, the population explosion bubble. At this point people will see that Christian ethics caused this whole thing, and it will be utterly discredited.

This narrow-minded dogma of saving every possible life, will instead have caused more death and suffering than if Christian ethics hadn’t meddled with the situation in the first place. It’s like a plan the devil had thought out. To give birth to billions of people that could then be killed in one single blow in mass starvation.

What this Christian dogma hasn’t taken in consideration is that each society needs to be self-dependent. Because sooner or later there comes hard times. And if we have made them utterly dependent on us what they will face then is death since they cannot support themselves.

So what this Christian dogma will have caused is the death of societies. So much simultaneous death will kill also the societies. This would never have happened if this Christian dogma hadn’t entered the picture in the first place. A constant degree of child deaths, while being self-dependent in the traditional way, would have been the best thing for these societies. And wouldn’t have hurt them; and neither have hurt us.

I think that once it has happened, people will see this point clearly, and change their ways.

“Feed the world” beats saving the resources of our planet (i.e. actually saving the planet), according to the moral grammar of our current belief system. Quite as multiculturalism and Islamophilia beats for example feminism (as they say: “Race beats gender”). Our moral grammar is full of such hierarchies, from which the priorities are derived, once the objectives end up in conflict with each other. To save every single possible human life is one of our deepest dogmas, but try to discuss overpopulation with these anti-CO2 freaks (i.e. 90 percent of the Westerners). Even when believing in their theory about “global warming by human CO2” it would be clear that this problem would be strongly connected to overpopulation. But to address that as a problem is an utter taboo for these people.

And just a general note: People here at Gates of Vienna focus on the immigration problem. But mass immigration is just the local projection of this much larger and more fundamental problem of which I’m talking of here, that is, the planetary population explosion and our attitudes towards it (which also caused it). It won’t help to address the immigration problem without addressing this global problem. That is, it won’t help to be a lonely, purely Polish, if surrounded by Arabs, Pakistanis and Africans all along the border.

What is happening across the world is the large scale version of what is happening within our countries. Our relative numbers are diminishing by theirs increasing exponentially, in both cases.

Things will not be able to turn around until the current belief system breaks apart, and makes a 180 degree turn. The main thing we can do today is to thoroughly prepare for that moment. These preparations also help protecting ourselves from violence and hardships in any sort of context. So no matter what future scenario one envisions, I’d say that the breakdown of the current belief system is not that far away.

I’d give it around a decade.

__________

Note:

[1] Editor’s note: I asked this question when I was still very naïve and admired the US.

The best of us or a master of taqiya?



Fjordman’s dad:
the source of Fjordie’s genes
and loyalties…



I like boasting in the internet about my psychological profiles of some bloggers. But in the case of Fjordman, who has been recently outed as Peder Jensen, it seems that I failed miserably.

According to several sites that have reproduced the physiognomy of Fjordman’s father, who looks like an Ashkenazi Jew, it now seems that Fjordman deceived all of us by making us believe that he was of pure Scandinavian ancestry. If Fjordman’s Jewishness is corroborated in the future, “Hyperborean Talmudist” would have been a more appropriate penname than the one that the Norwegian Peder Jensen chose since he began his blogging career in 2005. A blogger commented:

You would expect a name like Fjordman to be used by a true Viking. I have noticed on French internet political forums that commenters who pose as Frenchmen while defending the Tel Aviv point of view usually go under historical names such as Clovis, Charlemagne, Viking, Gaulois, Vercingetorix… At least, Fjordman is a Norwegian citizen. It would have been funny to find out that he actually lived in Tel Aviv.

Jews have been the main competitors of Whites in the last couple of centuries, which explains why they have had a history of crypsis or passing as gentiles: for example, by changing their first and last names, while in fact they maintain their Jewish identity and loyalty toward their tribe, even the most secularized Jews.

What would happen if a more mainstream source confirms that Peder Jensen is indeed Jewish on his father’s side (I am not talking of being considered Jew by his local synagogue but of his ultimate loyalty)? I believe that Fjordman/Jensen would pass to history as a master of taqiya who bamboozled even his closest friends in the counter-jihad movement.

A few days ago Ned May, better known for his penname of “Baron Bodissey,” wrote a eulogy to Fjordman of which I will quote a couple of sentences:

Fjordman began posting essays at Gates of Vienna in the spring of 2006. I first met him in person about a year later during my trip to Copenhagen. We have encountered each other again over the years during some of my visits to Europe. In the process we became good friends, and remained in correspondence until he made his momentous decision the other day to visit the police…

For the record: Fjordman is the best of us [bold in the original]. He is not just a brilliant scholar and a fine writer, but also the most decent, gentle, and humane person I have ever met. He is a man of utmost integrity, and it shines through in his dealings with others as well as in the millions of words he has written.

A man of utmost integrity? Really? Fjordman announced that, because he wanted to stonewall all discussion on the Jewish Question with people like me at the Baron’s Gates of Vienna, he asked the Baron to close comments on every future essay authored by Fjordie. In the thread of that bizarre announcement the “Baron” commented:

Some of them have even floated the theory that Fjordman himself is a Jew… The Jew-obsessed White Nationalists believe Fjordman is at best a crypto-Jew… Now do you see how absurd your [Cumpa—a commenter who disliked the closing of the comments] preoccupation is, given the above circumstances?

Of course: nationalists are no more “obsessed” with Jews than counter-jihadists are “obsessed” with Muslims. The grim fact is that both, Muslims and Jews, are undermining Western civilization from within. However, the Baron’s words can only mean that, despite his close friendship with Fjordman, Fjordie concealed a vital piece of biographical info from him: his Jewishness!

Vital, because as those who have read The Culture of Critique appreciate, the Jewish intellectual movements that have hurt Western interests have had the nasty little habit of using a gentile face as the perfect PR for an unsuspecting public. Hadn’t the “Baron” Ned May or even myself been so trusting with the Jews we would have paid attention to warnings such as this one last year:

I conclude that Fjordman may not himself be a Norwegian as he claims but rather just another crypto-Jew hiding under a pseudonym that belies his true identity.

Again, we need independent confirmation besides his dad’s pic. But for the moment it is worth citing what other nationalists are starting to write after Fjordman was outed as Peder Jensen. In Raider of Arks, a recently opened blog, Svigor wrote (TBFKA = “the blogger formerly known as”):

This is why I don’t trust people like Jensen, the blogger formerly known as Fjordman… Because they turn out to be f[ucking] liars (if memory serves, TBFKA Fjordman either denied Ashkenazi ancestry, or avoided the question), or cowards, or both… I don’t usually go in for accusing guys like TBFKA Fjordman of being Ashkenazis, for various reasons, but in this case the J’Accuse folks seem to have been right. They’ll definitely be making hay out of this one for years to come.

Contrast Svigor’s J’Accuse with the Baron’s eulogy of Fjordman as “the most decent, gentle, and humane person I have ever met.” In the Raider of Arks thread I commented:

In the past I had banged my head trying to figure out why on earth wasn’t Fjordman willing to advance even a single argument defending his philo-Semitism when challenged. It made no sense!

In various blogs Fjordie never, ever entered the arena on the Jewish Question (JQ). He simply dismissed the subject. Or, like Larry Auster, he merely casted aspersions and attempted to silence those who dared to bring up any aspect of the JQ. In Raider of Arks Svigor replied:

That’s what I was getting at about how to suss them out.

Why is it so important to suss non-gentiles out? Fjordman for one has authored dozens of influential in-depth essays where he ignores the JQ en bloc—an inexplicable phenomenon when we were under the assumption that he was a true Viking. At the same time Fjordman has claimed that “the ‘Jewish threat’ in the 1930s was entirely fictional, whereas the ‘Islamic threat’ now is very real” (“Swedish Welfare State Collapses as Immigrants Wage War,” Brussels Journal, 28 March 2006, reprinted in Fjordie’s book Defeating Eurabia).

Of course, exactly the reverse is true: Jews have caused infinitely more havoc to the West than Muslims in contemporary times, as any knowledgeable person of the JQ knows (see e.g. my collection of blog entries here and here).

This can only mean that the counter-jihadists at Gates of Vienna (GoV) have distorted their minds to see the colors of life as a photographic negative. For instance, a Swedish GoVer friend of Fjordman—another half-Jew?—has labeled nationalists who, in good faith, want to discuss the JQ at GoV as “defecating dogs” (cf. here) when exactly the reverse is true. In the aftermath of the outing of Fjordman, Scott said:

Attacking multiculturalism without attacking Jewish power is like attacking shit on the floor while ignoring the incontinent dog.

Scott has thus revealed into a positive the GoVer’s photographic negative. Attacking Jewish power is necessary because we cannot ignore the role of several Jewish associations in the opening of the gates for massive, non-Aryan immigration into Western countries, especially the United States—precisely what I said at GoV that infuriated Fjordman to the point of requesting the closing of all comments in his future essays.

Half-Jew Takuan Seiyo had done exactly the same thing with his essays at the Brussels Journal: closing his threads when challanged about the JQ.

What should gentiles do with such Jewish arrogance in the counter-jihad movement? Lindsay Wheeler nailed it at Age of Treason:

Baron Bodissey with his blind obsession with things Israel is just a deceived old fool. Steve Sailor is a man without courage. Truth requires Manliness. And the Roman Catholic Church has the “Fear of the Jews.” Without the suppression of the Jews, there is going to be no redress. Jews are hopelessly and intrinsically infected with Messianism. It can’t be helped… I want all to note all these Jews, Lawrence Auster, David Horowitz, Fjordman, et al, are all fomenting “anti-Jihad,” talking about being anti-Muslim. Aren’t Muslims a Semitic people? If there is consistency, wouldn’t Europeans be against all Semites? Why allow one group to reign and run all over free and restrict another? Does that make sense? If one is to be anti-Muslim, one must also be anti-Juden.

The Jews have to be suppressed if we are going to save our culture. Being anti-Jihad (whatever that means), but defending and upholding the freedom of the Jews, is hypocritical. We are being played. We are supposed to act like attack dogs by our Jewish handlers. Fjordman has been outed as one. We have hundreds more.

But the sad truth is that gentile counter-jihadists like the “Baron” Ned May, Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders will continue to adore their beloved Fjordie.

Published in: on August 9, 2011 at 1:05 am  Comments (4)  

A gentile baron

under the spell of the Jew

Just as mainstream newspapers would immediately fire anyone who dares even to hint that there’s such a thing as a Jewish Question, many bloggers, even those who vehemently “defend” the West, are clueless about the JQ.

On February 28 of the last year Baron Bodissey, the administrator of the counter-jihad blogsite Gates of Vienna, responded to an e-mail communicating me that he would not be publishing the rest of my online book The Return of Quetzalcoatl in his site. Bodissey wrote:

My problem comes from the turn your blog has taken. Not only have you yourself, with your “lightning strike” moment, decided that there is a “Jewish problem”, but you have also welcomed comments from real National Socialists—people who want to continue the work of the Third Reich, especially as regards the Jews and other “inferior” races… I can’t help but take into consideration the trouble it would cause for me to associate myself with people who openly advocate the extermination of the Jews.

I have worked hard in recent months to establish some lines of communication with people in Israel. Despite how worthwhile your chapters are, I won’t risk throwing all that away to publish them.

–Baron B.

I was flabbergasted. None of the commenters who Bodissey referred to in my “lightening strike” thread advocate exterminating the Jews, not even the one who in that thread openly identified himself with National Socialism. Nor have they said that the Jews are “an inferior race.”

Bodissey’s was the proverbial reaction we hear thousands of times from those who have been bewitched by the elites every time any of us dares to name what must never be named: the members of the ethnic group who control the media, large parts of the financial sector and are influential in the academia.

I was disappointed that the rest of The Return of Quetzalcoatl would have to be published in my own blog instead of reaching a wider audience—again, what happens in the large newspapers when one dares to name the Jew. That day after several exchanges with Bodissey I realized that, in spite of the fact that Bodissey claims to be an intellectual, he had no idea whatsoever of what we meant when we talk about the “problem.” Bodissey again:

Based on my own personal experience—personal, mind you; people I actually know—the characterization that there is a “Jewish problem” simply isn’t true. I see more of a “Swedish problem” than I do a “Jewish problem”.

Although this month I added five rather modest entries in this blog on Jew-blind counter-jihad (two of them inspired me to chose the above image), I am no expert on the question of how Jewish influence has been detrimental to Western civilization. However, the interested reader may listen Professor Kevin MacDonald’s conference at the seminar “Revolt Against Civilization” hosted by the Danish Society for Free Historical Research in Denmark last month:

Jewish Intellectual Movements
in the 20th Century:

•  Part 1/6

•  Part 2/6

•  Part 3/6

•  Part 4/6

•  Part 5/6

Part 6/6

The honest listener will see if, following Bodissey’s remarks last year, I suddenly “decided” (his word) that there’s a Jewish problem or if the problem really does exist outside my head.

Published in: on June 25, 2011 at 4:01 pm  Comments (7)  

“…then you are in sad shape”

Perhaps those who have been following my little trilogy (here, here and here) may be interested in the intelligent comments by Daybreaker today at Age of Treason about the recent incident at the counter-jihad site Gates of Vienna.

Daybreaker wrote:



I wasn’t participating in the conversation, but I read both threads, and… the impression I got was that The Sentinel was telling the truth and he never received a satisfactory reply.

The polite dissidents Tanstaafl and Chechar did well, and team Takuan Seiyo came off as nasty and shameless in exploiting the fact that the Gates of Vienna can’t afford to be seen countenancing anti-Jewish opinions…

I found the threads enlightening. I hadn’t realized the anti-jihadists were that weak. In the face of a few reasons why a list of six hostile groups [the six-point list appears: here] should have been a list of seven hostile groups (which is surely on-topic), they were quickly reduced to abuse, bluster and the ever-popular “shut up.”

Nobody thinks Jews are the only problem, including Kevin MacDonald, who has written eloquently on the self-destructiveness of typically White universalism and “altruistic punishment” carried beyond reasonable bounds. Fertility is a problem for advanced societies, even the Japanese, who nobody thinks are responding to Jewish pressure not to have kids. Feminism can create severe problems independently of Judaism. Political correctness and the sort of one-sided liberal philosophy that sees autonomy as the supreme good rather than one item in a basket of goods are real menaces. “Black Run America” may be an exaggerated label, but there are plenty of White people who are experiencing problems along those lines, in cities where the political machine has gone Black, and “Black Run Southern Africa” is a brutal reality. Islam is still there and still a menace, and any European would be a fool to ignore it, if only because it’s the religion of Arab ethnic supremacism and thus at least dubious for White people. And so on.

So it’s not only Jews that get blamed.

Rather it’s only Jews that demand that they be above blame, and that will attack to the point of derailing threads repeatedly unless they are set above the ordinary standards of criticism that are applied to everyone else. If there’s a list of six or seven items, and all of them blame somebody, count on the ones that blame White men to go through without any objection from anyone, and most of the other items to go through with varying minor degrees of objection, but don’t be surprised when the one that mentions Jews ignites a lasting firestorm of verbal punishment. The whole thread gets derailed, over and over, so that the only way to get relief is either to establish some explicitly non-Jewish discussion space (which I guess institutions like the Catholic Church have done, historically), or else ban, demonize, marginalize and discourage whoever refuses to let Jews play by special rules that advantage them over everyone else.

And then comes the amazing claim that it’s the Judeo-skeptics who have one-track minds. [e.g., here]

***

Anti-jihadism, with Jews seen as an indispensable part of the coalition (that is, with the power of veto) cannot transcend this problem. At least, it obviously hasn’t. If the Jews are indispensable, and it’s unacceptable (or at least too wearing on the nerves of relatively conflict-averse Whites) to have the fights that Jews will start whenever they aren’t privileged enough, then everybody and everything displeasing to Jews has to go.

Then anti-jihadism must become in time, a Jewish front, in effect. It will take on jihadism and mass immigration only as and when that suits Jews. If Jews don’t think ending mass immigration in general should be part of the program, it won’t be, even if that would be the only principled and practicable way to keep Islamic hordes out of White countries.

In time an anti-jihadist front may even include other items that aren’t logically connected with protecting Whites from jihad at all, because Jews and crypto-Jews can’t be kicked off the team (because they’re the ones with the money and connections), and they’ll make life unbearable for everyone else until they get their way.

Anti-jihadism as a coalition including Jews and Whites is hollow. It can’t defend itself in straight up intellectual terms, as seen in these Gates of Vienna threads.

And in the long term it won’t defend White interests. It’s a “coalition” that only exists while one side has the money and sets the rules and gets what it wants (or else), and the other side supplies warm bodies and labors on despite the fact that its needs are not being met, in frustration over lack of alternatives and in the vain hope that things will somehow get better.

This has been the Jewish ethno-political style for century after century, for millennium after millennium, in different states, on different continents, and in dealing with vastly dissimilar groups of Whites.

It’s not profitable for Whites, collectively and in the long run, to enter coalitions on these terms.

***

Fjordman [wrote]:

“The simple fact is that when it comes to giving birth to the Proposition Nation, which was the subject of my original essay, Jews were quite irrelevant.”

The simple fact is that that was not a “simple fact” but an assumption that was bound to be controversial, given that Jews have been highly relevant to issues of immigration, “pluralism” and so on in White countries.

Fjordman should have anticipated that inevitable controversy. He could have given reasons for his assumption. (It is entirely unsupported in his post.) Or he could have said (in the original post) that he wasn’t ready to discuss the Jewish issue and asked people to confine discussion to other aspects of his new thinking, where he was ready to respond. (I’m sure someone would have asked why he wasn’t ready to respond to such an obvious problem. But if he had stuck to saying that he needed a discussion on other aspects of the proposition nation as he had described it, I think Tanstaafl for one would have respected that.) Or he could have asked that his sixth point be taken as covering the Jewish issue for the time being, and requested that those commenting try to address all six points evenly, not just one.

What he did was pretend, with an unsupported controversial assumption, that no problem exists, and then when this odd move was questioned he supported rhetorical hostilities including exclusion for those puzzled by his assumption.

In effect, he hijacked his own thread by managing it badly. And he took no responsibility for this.

If things had gone down as Fjordman said, I would feel sorry for him. But as Mary points out, you can line up what he said Chechar confessed to with what Chechar said, and it’s obvious that Fjordman is making serious misstatements about things in our plain sight, and worse, using these invented facts to justify a lot of discourteous behavior by himself and others.

That creates a pathetic impression. When you can’t respond to reasonable requests such as those from The Sentinel with reasons, not abuse, when you can’t defend your thesis and in effect you need abusive rhetoric from yourself and others as a way to justify lowering the curtain on a discussion where you are not coming off well intellectually, and when you need to misstate the very plainly stated opinions of those who dissent in order to justify this rhetorical abuse and this silencing, then you are in sad shape.

Published in: on June 13, 2011 at 11:06 pm  Comments (5)